M Rama Reddy vs The Land Tribunal
2023 Latest Caselaw 42 Kant

                              1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2023

                        PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                          AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

            WRIT APPEAL NO.3933/2012(LR)

BETWEEN:

M. RAMA REDDY
S/O MUNISHYAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
RESIDING AT HULLAHALLI
JIGANI HOBLI, BANGALORE
SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE.                    ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI, ADV., A/W
    SRI S. LAKSHMINARAYANA RDDY, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     THE LAND TRIBUNAL
       ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       CHAIRMAN.

2.     SHIR MUNIRAMA REDDY
       S/O BASAPPA
       SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

2(A). SMT. JAYAMMA
      W/O LATE MUNIRAMA REDDY
      AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

2(B). SMT. MALA
      D/O LATE MUIRAMA REDDY
      W/O BABU REDDY
      AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
                            2

2(C). SMT. ROOPA
      D/O LATE MUNIRAMA REDDY
      W/O VIJAY KUMAR
      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

2(D). SMT. DEEPA
      D/O LATE MUNIRAMA REDDY
      W/O SHIVA PRASAD REDDY
      AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

     ALL ARE RESIDING AT RUPENA
     AGRAHARA, MADIWALA POST
     BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
     BENGALURU.

3.   SHRI BYRAPPA REDDY
     S/O BASAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
     RESIDING AT RUPENA AGRAHARA
     MADIWALA (POST)
     BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
     BANGALORE.                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA., FOR R-
    SRI G.KRISHNA MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI JANARDHANA G, ADV., FOR R-3;
    SRI SRIHARI A.V, ADV., FOR R-2
    V/O DATED 17.11.2022 SERVICE OF
    NOTICE TO R-2(A-D) IS ACCEPTED)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.12686/2005(LR)
DATED 11.06.2012.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY       J.,   DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                    JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal is filed assailing the order

dated 11.06.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of

this Court in W.P.No.12686/2005.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the parties and also perused the material available on

record.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the

records that may be necessary for the purpose of

disposal of this appeal are, the appellant herein had filed

Form no.7 claiming occupancy rights of the land bearing

Sy. No.234 measuring 1 acre and Sy. No.235 measuring

15 guntas situated at Hullahalli, Jigani Hobli, Bengaluru

South Taluk, Bengaluru District (hereinafter referred to

as 'the lands in question'), and respondent no.1 by order

dated 30.10.1981 had granted occupancy rights of the

lands in question in favour of the appellant. The father of

respondent nos.2 & 3 herein viz., late Basappa who was

the owner of the lands in question had participated in the

enquiry proceedings before the Land Tribunal. However,

he had not challenged the order dated 30.10.1981 under

which occupancy rights of the lands in question was

granted to the appellant. The said order was belatedly

challenged by respondent no.3 herein before the learned

Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.12686/2005

contending that the lands in question was allotted to him

in a family partition and without hearing him, the Land

Tribunal had granted occupancy rights of the lands in

question in favour of the appellant. The said writ petition

was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Land

Tribunal to hold a fresh enquiry and dispose of the

matter in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the

said order, the appellant is before this Court.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellant submits that the writ petition was filed

belatedly after an inordinate delay of 24 years and

though there is no proper and satisfactory explanation

offered to the said inordinate delay in filing the writ

petition, the learned Single Judge has entertained the

writ petition. He submits that Basappa - father of

respondent nos.2 & 3 who was the original landlord had

participated in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal

and he had not chosen to challenge the order dated

30.10.1981 during his lifetime. He also submits that the

aforesaid Basappa died in the year 2008 and as on the

date of filing the writ petition, he was alive and he was

not even impleaded as a party in the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

respondent no.3 submits that the lands in question were

allotted to the share of respondent no.3 in a family

partition much earlier to the order dated 30.10.1981, and

therefore, he was a necessary party before the Land

Tribunal. He submits that the Land Tribunal has failed to

properly appreciate the evidence led on behalf of the

landlord late Basappa. He also submits that the order of

the Land Tribunal is not a speaking order and no proper

reasoning has been assigned for granting occupancy

rights of the lands in question in favour of the appellant.

He submits that the Land Tribunal has not held the

enquiry as required under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land

Reforms Rules, 1974 (for short, 'the Rules'), and in

support of his arguments, he has relied upon the

judgment of this Court in the case of M.R.NANJUNDA

SETTY VS LAND TRIBUNAL, SOMWARPET TALUK &

ANOTHER - AIR 1978 KAR 86.

6. The material on record would go to show that

the father of respondent nos.2 & 3 herein viz., late

Basappa who was served with the notice in the

proceedings before the Land Tribunal, had appeared

before the Land Tribunal and contested the claim made

by the appellant. He also had led evidence on his behalf

and examined himself and another witness before the

Land Tribunal in support of his case. The Land Tribunal,

thereafter, vide the order dated 30.10.1981 had granted

occupancy rights of the lands in question in favour of the

appellant. The said order was not questioned by late

Basappa who is the father of respondent nos.2 & 3 herein

during his lifetime. Basappa died on 17.07.2008. Though

respondent no.3 herein has contended in the writ petition

that his father had not contested the case and had not

given any statement before the Land Tribunal, the

material on record would go to show that late Basappa

had contested the claim of the appellant and also had led

evidence before the Land Tribunal.

7. The material on record would also go to show

that the appellant had applied for the certified copy of

the order dated 30.10.1981 and the same was obtained

on 16.05.1998. However, the writ petition is filed in the

year 2005. There is no proper explanation even for the

delay of nearly 7 years in filing the writ petition after

obtaining the certified copy of the order dated

30.10.1981. In addition to the same, the father of

respondent nos.2 & 3 herein who had contested the claim

of the appellant before the Land Tribunal had not chosen

to challenge the order dated 30.10.1981 passed by the

Land Tribunal during his lifetime, and undisputedly, the

writ petition has been filed by respondent no.3 herein

during the lifetime of his father late Basappa and late

Basappa has not been arrayed as party to the writ

petition.

8. The writ petition has been filed after an

inordinate delay of 24 years and the petitioner in the writ

petition had failed to offer proper and satisfactory

explanation for the said inordinate delay of 24 years in

filing the writ petition. Under the circumstances, we are

of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge

was not justified in entertaining the writ petition which

was filed after a delay of 24 years from the date of the

order passed by the Land Tribunal.

9. The question whether the Land Tribunal has

passed the order in compliance of Rule 17 of the Rules

and whether the order passed by the Land Tribunal is a

speaking order or not, etc., cannot be considered in a

writ petition which is filed after an inordinate delay of 24

years, more so when no proper and satisfactory reasons

have been offered explaining the said inordinate delay of

24 years. Under the circumstances, the judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the learned

Senior Counsel for respondent no.3 cannot be made

applicable to the facts of the present case.

10. We are of the considered view that the writ

petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay

and latches, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was

not justified in entertaining the writ petition. Accordingly,

the following order:

11. The writ appeal is allowed. The order dated

11.06.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this

Court in W.P.No.12686/2005, is set aside.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KK